The genesis of the MMM was a response not to the CRA but to the passage of an Amendent to the Atlasian Constitution declaring the necessity of militias to the defense of a free state. It was our sense that in the present moment there was a spirit of fear for the security and freedom of the people, and so we set about to implement our vision at this time in a way that would serve the people in a responsible manner by giving them a sense of peace and unity. We have committed ourselves to the common defense, without prejudice, to protect against those who would incite war between one group of people and another.
It must be an issue of cultural differences, but anyway. Regardless what the constitution may say, I see no reason to create militias when the defense of the nation is already ensured by the existence of the Armed Forces. On the other hand, it's strange that connection you make between protecting the people's freedom and security and to "implement our vision". Who are you speaking for? Furthermore, if your "beloved governor" is actually threatened by "explicit threats of violence" and "perverse accusations", for sure there must be a highest instance to go for protection.
In my opinion the right to keep ad bear arms, as well as the right to create militias, should not be incompatible to a clear and somewhat strict regulation. As well as the possesion of firearms must be under legal control in order to protect people's safety and security, the creation militias should be regulated and have a clear purpose. Something more concrete than "threats to freedom and security" or threats to individual office holders. Otherwise, the militias might become in the tools of certain interest groups, as well as they might tempted to commit power abuses (always in the name of high and sacred values, of course).
